New life for the website

Author: DebateArt.com
DebateArt
DART

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,403
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
Hi folks,

As you might have noticed, I am barely available these days due to some challenges in life and I figured that it's probably time to move the ownership of the website to somebody else, that is, to try to sell it or donate it. I still need to do some research on how difficult it's going to be to transfer everything, because frankly I've never done anything like that, but that shouldn't take too much time. Anyway, if anyone is interested, please DM me.

When it comes to the tech stack:

It's almost a fully server rendered site implemented with Elixir/Phoenix. For those familiar with Ruby or Python, it shouldn't be too hard to grasp.
The front-end is mostly jQuery, coz for such a simple interface, it made no sense to bring up heavy artillery like React. Although the chat is implemented with VueJS, due to its highly interactive nature. I can provide more details in DM if interested.

#2
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
If you have to transfer the website due to business on your end, make sure whoever the new owner is doesn't censor people like what the corporate media does.  I wouldn't want someone like George Soros running DART.
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
@TheUnderdog
I like the current owner.

I wouldnt want for this site to become one of those "safe spaces" where you can only debate few topics.
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm fine with the current owner as well.  But the current owner is not fine with the current owner being the current owner.
#5
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@DebateArt.com
Consider selling the site to another forum based website. Maybe something similar in format or theme. Except lacking in the debates section. 
#6
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
For once, I agree with you.

Metaphorically speaking, the same "demon of censorship" came to possess every sizable tech company all at once in the second half of the 2010s. They'll bring that same toxic anti-free speech environment here if they can get their hands on this website.
Here. A literal debate platform. What would remain is a sad echo chamber between leftists of all stripes and a tiny handful of ultra-vanilla RINOs who, despite themselves, would still find themselves walking on eggshells at times to avoid a ban. In turn, the website itself would die because it'd become so insufferably boring overnight. And in turn, the buyer would compensate for this by defrauding advertisers with a torrent of spam accounts and spam content like what happened on DDO.
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
What would remain is a sad echo chamber between leftists of all stripes and a tiny handful of ultra-vanilla RINOs
If your definition of a RINO is an anti Trump republican, would you call Ben Shapiro a RINO?  He doesn't like Trump.

 the same "demon of censorship" came to possess every sizable tech company all at once in the second half of the 2010s. 
If the Daily Wire and Prager U and Charlie Kirk were being censored by Big Tech, you would have no idea those people even exist.

Stop playing the victim (just like many hardcore BLM supporters)!
#8
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@DebateArt.com
I offered to buy the site under a different username previously. Just hit me up so this doesn't go into the wrong hands
#9
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your definition of a RINO is an anti Trump republican, would you call Ben Shapiro a RINO?  He doesn't like Trump.
A RINO is an ultra-center rightist who holds normal right-wingers in disdain. He craves the respectability afforded liberals through their control of the media and academia, and for a while they might even give it to him, so long as he sells out his own party in exchange. But in the long-run he's helping them shift the Overton Window left, and eventually he himself will be dubbed a radical whose politics are outside the mainstream.

If the Daily Wire and Prager U and Charlie Kirk were being censored by Big Tech, you would have no idea those people even exist.
Prager U is pretty tame though, and delineates more or less the outer limits of how right-wing you can go before being deplatformed or demonetized on YouTube. Several years ago, I would sometimes have alt-right or alt-lite videos (e.g. Sargon of Akkad) recommended to me on YouTube. Today it's all BreadTube (including a few communists) or occasionally Matt Walsh, suggesting the far-right has since been purged from there. And I suspect that whatever small far-right presence does still exist on YouTube is volunteer-based and they can't make a living doing it.
Additionally, see Parler, which overall was to the left of Gab but nonetheless was temporarily purged from the internet after January 6, because big tech stopped hosting the website and they had to find a new business partner.

Stop playing the victim (just like many hardcore BLM supporters)!
Dude.
People have been denied banking services needed to live in the 21st century, for no reason other than their speech. The Canadian government hacked and seized the crypto assets of the trucker protesters a year or two ago. The US is the only Western country where you don't have to fear being literally arrested and prosecuted for expressing an opinion as basic as "marriage is between a man and a woman", much less a more hardcore right-wing sentiment.
My life, as it stands right now, is easy compared to what some have been through. Nonetheless, "this violation of my rights is okay because other people have been violated even worse" is how you get fascism. So yes, whatever minute degree of repression the system subjects me to, I will find it intolerable now and in the future.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DebateArt.com
Hey.

Move on if you need to.

As I will if necessary.
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
A RINO is an ultra-center rightist who holds normal right-wingers in disdain. 
What does it mean to be "ultra center right"?  Right and left are arbitrary labels to describe arbitrary combinations of ideas, with no consistency with their beliefs.

 But in the long-run he's helping them shift the Overton Window left, and eventually he himself will be dubbed a radical whose politics are outside the mainstream.
Where the Overton window shifts doesn't matter.  The Overton window has shifted right on some issues (abortion) and left on some other issues (gay marriage).  The Overton window doesn't exclusively shift left.

Additionally, see Parler, which overall was to the left of Gab but nonetheless was temporarily purged from the internet after January 6, because big tech stopped hosting the website and they had to find a new business partner.
Why would the right be against a company being deplatformed?  That's capitalism; that's the free market.  

You can pick between free speech restrictions (letting Bid Tech/the free market censor) or free market restrictions (not letting Bid Tech/the free market censor).

The right has to pick one to be consistent.

The US is the only Western country where you don't have to fear being literally arrested and prosecuted for expressing an opinion as basic as "marriage is between a man and a woman", much less a more hardcore right-wing sentiment.
That's because of the first amendment (which is good and even waving a Nazi flag or burning an American flag should be classified as free speech).

But here's the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, it's only congress that cannot prosecute you for your opinions.  It says nothing about corporations.  Fox News for instance, won't have a smart left winger like Kyle Kulinski on their show much because he makes Fox News look bad (the same is true for Marian Williamson).

With regards to corporations, you right now don't have free speech protections federally.  And there are many instances of non government entities discriminating against entities because of their political opinions (the right cancelling bud light).

It's all legal.

Now, I think the first amendment should be expanded so the government and private companies can't discriminate against people for political opinions stated in non-work environments.  So you could say that I am more pro free speech than pro free market.

But as of right now, free market and free speech are opposite values on the issue of censorship.

Nonetheless, "this violation of my rights is okay because other people have been violated even worse" is how you get fascism.
So you admit black people have had their rights violated and therefore want to end police brutality?  Alright.
#12
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why would the right be against a company being deplatformed?  That's capitalism; that's the free market.  
Every important person in an industry, much less dozens of industries, colluding to promote the same ideology, purely for ideological reasons, and deny access to basic services to those who run contrary to such, isn't a natural product of free markets. In a free market, rational people would elevate their money-making instinct above their "I don't like this person so I refuse to serve them" instinct. Rather, it's exclusively the result of the mean-spiritedness of hundreds of thousands of powerful individuals.
And yes, I'll admit free markets aren't enough to solve this. Everyone has an issue that they break with their camp on, and this is mine.

That's because of the first amendment (which is good and even waving a Nazi flag or burning an American flag should be classified as free speech).
Yes, here I was referring to government censorship, not private sector censorship. Government censorship is very real outside the United States.
But since the bulk of human speech has migrated onboard platforms like Facebook Twitter, Reddit, etc., to the unnatural exclusion from said discourse of anyone who lacks access to these platforms, these companies deserve to be considered as powerful as governments in this regard and regulated as though they were governments.

So you admit black people have had their rights violated and therefore want to end police brutality?  Alright.
Sure. If it can be proven in court that a black man (or a person of any race) was brutalized by cops and that he didn't create circumstances which justified their conduct, then let the appropriate remedies be taken.
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Every important person in an industry, much less dozens of industries, colluding to promote the same ideology, purely for ideological reasons, and deny access to basic services to those who run contrary to such, isn't a natural product of free markets.
A clothing store can tell a farmer, "we don't sell your product because it is food" and the farmer can't do anything to change that.

A food store can tell a tailor, "we don't sell your product because it is clothes" and the tailor can't do anything to change that.

A store that is open about the fact that they sell clothes and food can accept goods from both the farmer and tailor.

A social media market can say, "We only sell liberal ideas", "We only sell conservative ideas", "We have an open border policy when it comes to the things we sell at our store" (anything goes), etc.

There are other markets/social media companies to state whatever ideas you believe in.  If FaceBook won't accept genuine conservative ideas, go to Parler.  If your ideas are accepted by neither, go to Quora; I've seen white nationalists state their opinions there.

Go where you are accepted.

And yes, I'll admit free markets aren't enough to solve this. Everyone has an issue that they break with their camp on, and this is mine.
The conservative (and libetarian) camp prefers free speech to free markets.  You aren't breaking with the conservative camp on this issue.

But since the bulk of human speech has migrated onboard platforms like Facebook Twitter, Reddit, etc., to the unnatural exclusion from said discourse of anyone who lacks access to these platforms, these companies deserve to be considered as powerful as governments in this regard and regulated as though they were governments.
Our government is nationalized.  So you would nationalize an industry?  It's fine to advocate this; the left wants to nationalize certain industries (healthcare).  Although the difference is the left's reason is to save lives (which is objectively good), your reason is to state your objectively neutral message (I say objectively neutral because while you consider your message to be subjectively good, the left would consider it to be subjectively bad).

Sure. If it can be proven in court that a black man (or a person of any race) was brutalized by cops and that he didn't create circumstances which justified their conduct, then let the appropriate remedies be taken.
Aliright; so you want Qualified immunity repealed.  So give the left credit on this issue, even if you disagree with them on abortion, guns, and transgenderism.
#14
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
Are there financial costs to running DART?
Do you make money by owning DART?
'Could you make money owning DART?
Topic's author
#15
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,403
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
-->
@Lemming
Are there financial costs to running DART?
Maybe 40-50$ per month, I forgot the exact numbers, but it's not much more than that.

Do you make money by owning DART?
I make a negative amount of money haha

'Could you make money owning DART?
I guess it's not impossible, depends on how you run it and how much money you have for marketing and whatnot.
#16
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Lemming
Could you make money owning DART?
In order to make money, you need to have something people will pay for.

You need to have some service or product which you can sell.

What would people pay for on DebateArt?

Would people pay to be able to debate? No.

Would people pay to be able to use forum? No.

Now, you could place ads on Dart, and that is some money depending on number of users. I dont know how much ads pay, but I know that almost every free app has ads as a way of making money.
#17
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Hmm. sadolite buying debate .art , Ill have to think about that.
#18
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,915
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DebateArt.com
@sadolite
Complicating circulating Nu Life...Nu Life

Operating generating Nu Life..Nu Life

Depeche Mode.........
#19
Bella3sp
Bella3sp's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 214
1
4
9
Bella3sp's avatar
Bella3sp
1
4
9
I just wish for people with actual commitments. 

With no sort of prejudice, id even consider some of the mods (whom may even move on themselves shortly), and just anyone with actual commitment to debating. Though I doubt most people have that time, or well.. will reappear per say. 


I don't have much to say besides look for someone that's practically not even on the website. Someone thats outside the website wanting to run their own website or even a current debate website thats willing to take control and ownership to boost this website. Otherwise, it may just be a blank website. Are you really willing to let a user with lots of indifference towards eachother have this website? Theres only a few I currently know with self-control. 


That being said, while I have been gone, good luck. Moving on from this website as owner for years is quite a lot. 
Hope your challanges get easier as you move on.. The future holds a lot, glad your moving on with all your business, like said, good luck.



#20
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Lemming
Are there financial costs to running DART?
Do you make money by owning DART?
'Could you make money owning DART?
You can make a small fortune running Dart, all you have to do is start with a large fortune.

14 days later

#21
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
Best of luck to you in finding the right person, and in all your future endeavors.

Ponikshiy could do a good job. They would certainly keep the user base entertained.

I would suggest considering RationalMadman whenever he comes back from his latest ‘I quit and I’m never coming back!’ The guy is more dedicated to this site than the rest of us combined, and clearly has vision for what he wants this site to be.

22 days later

#22
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,272
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
Fingers crossed.
#23
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,448
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Ponikshiy could do a good job. They would certainly keep the user base entertained.
I offered and have had a few coders already promise to donate their time to make sure the site keeps running. I haven't heard anything back. Maybe he was just spit balling or had a temporary fleeting feeling of being done. The only thing I would maybe change is the site name and at some point at a blog section of each users profile so that way people can feel like they are building something here.

I would keep the mods the same, as I think you guys do an incredible job and even when we disagree on thing I still think your heart and the rest of the mod's hearts are in the same place. The only modding abilit I would remove would maybe be David's because I don't quite trust him to not have some sort of moment where he wants to take a wrecking ball to things, and this is a result of my past interactions with him and him openly stating he is a member of antifa.

If I end up making a deal with him, than I probably won't even openly admit to owning the site and just operate under a pseudonym, and this is so my interactions with others remains the same. I don't want any percieved power to impact people in a way where they are less honest about either my short comings or the short comings of my arguments.




94 days later

#24
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Hahaha!
Alas I've only a tiny savings at this point in life, and unlike earlier plans I had, I'm unable to keep adding to it for the past few months, or the next few months.
(F*** it'll be about a year of wasted earning opportunity, though I 'could work, I don't want to worry after family and work right now, my savings can take a small vacation.)

With how a much I end up lending to family now and then I 'have to have at least that tiny savings,
So can't invest it right now, if et even would have been enough anyhow.
#25
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Lemming
Hey man, long time no see.

How's your brother doing?   Still good?
#26
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Couple minor incidents, but there's been a lot of progress in lucidity,
Less strange thoughts.